Hi and thanks for visiting the best Ravens forum on the planet. You do not have to be a member to browse the various forums, but in order to post and interact with your purple brethren, you will have to **register**. It only takes a couple of minutes. You can also use your Facebook account to log in....just click on the blue 'FConnect' link at the very top of the page.

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Originally Posted by Dade

One question I have is... Did Zimmerman shot Martin while lying on his back, or did he manage to get to his feet first, or even a couching position? I don't recall Zimmerman ever saying what position he was in when he pulled the trigger.

I always assumed he was on his back, though I admit I haven't seen any verbatim statements on the matter.

If he got up, even to a crouching position, then I think his self-defense claim becomes extremely weak to non-existent (unless he could argue they were both grabbing/holding the gun, which I don't think he has claimed).

If he was able to "get away" in any manner, then he legally has to do that before using deadly force.

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Originally Posted by Haloti92

If he was able to "get away" in any manner, then he legally has to do that before using deadly force.

Not according to FL's "Stand Your Ground" law.

WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Originally Posted by Haloti92

I always assumed he was on his back, though I admit I haven't seen any verbatim statements on the matter.

If he got up, even to a crouching position, then I think his self-defense claim becomes extremely weak to non-existent (unless he could argue they were both grabbing/holding the gun, which I don't think he has claimed).

If he was able to "get away" in any manner, then he legally has to do that before using deadly force.

Exactly. In this case, shooting from anything other than on his back destorys his claim of self defense. If I'm the prosecution I'm asking that question if Zimmerman takes the stand.

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

At the 10:00 minute mark, Zimmerman explains the details that night to police.

He was down, screaming for help with Trayvon on top of him when Trayvon sees the gun in the holster and goes for it.

WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

You are right, he doesn't have a legal duty to retreat or flee, but he does have a legal duty to "reasonably believe deadly force is necessary to prevent great bodily harm or death."

The ability to move/dodge/escape absolutely raises the hurdle on what is required to "reasonably believe" you are in danger of great bodily harm. At least in the case where the other guy is unarmed.

If the fight was a standing fight, his injuries do not even get in the ballpark of making such a fear "reasonable," imo. You cannot get in a fight and after the first punch, pull out a gun and shoot someone, even under Stand Your Ground; at least not how I read the law. Nor do I think you can get in a fight, get pinned and beaten for a bit, then when the other guy let's you up, you stand up and shoot him.

EDIT: Of course searching the vast number of cases (and the results) in which Stand Your Ground was used as a defense, makes me wonder if there is really any consistent application at all with the law. It appears to be interpreted in the craziest and inconsistent of ways (both in terms of convictions and acquittals) depending on the circumstances/jury, based on some of the case summaries I am seeing.

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

You are right, he doesn't have a legal duty to retreat or flee, but he does have a legal duty to "reasonably believe deadly force is necessary to prevent great bodily harm or death."

The ability to move/dodge/escape absolutely raises the hurdle on what is required to "reasonably believe" you are in danger of great bodily harm. At least in the case where the other guy is unarmed.

If the fight was a standing fight, his injuries do not even get in the ballpark of making such a fear "reasonable," imo. You cannot get in a fight and after the first punch, pull out a gun and shoot someone, even under Stand Your Ground; at least not how I read the law. Nor do I think you can get in a fight, get pinned and beaten for a bit, then when the other guy let's you up, you stand up and shoot him.

EDIT: Of course searching the vast number of cases (and the results) in which Stand Your Ground was used as a defense, makes me wonder if there is really any consistent application at all with the law. It appears to be interpreted in the craziest of ways (both in terms of convictions and acquittals) depending on the circumstances/jury, based on some of the case summaries I am seeing.

I am pretty sure if you don't start the fight and someone hits you you are justified to use deadly force. If they push you, you are not. At least that was the understanding from the explination in the concealed carry course I took.

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

I am pretty sure if you don't start the fight and someone hits you you are justified to use deadly force. If they push you, you are not. At least that was the understanding from the explination in the concealed carry course I took.

If that is the case than I would say the law is not being followed at all. The text of the law (for Florida) is:

Where, in this case (not in dwelling, residence, or vehicle) Section (3) applies:

Originally Posted by link

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

I don't see how a single punch being met with a gunshot is "meeting force with force" or how getting punched a single time satisfies "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm." Then again, like I said, I have seen an absurd range of variable verdicts where the Stand Your Ground defense has been employed.

But HR is correct, I was wrong. There is no legal duty to flee in this case.

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Where, in this case (not in dwelling, residence, or vehicle) Section (3) applies:

I don't see how a single punch being met with a gunshot is "meeting force with force" or how getting punched a single time satisfies "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm." Then again, like I said, I have seen an absurd range of variable verdicts where the Stand Your Ground defense has been employed.

Sorry, I didn't mean stand your ground law. I meant were you would be justified to use deadly force in general.

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Except that he wasn't punched in the face once and that was that.

WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

My point is that there is a condition that needs to be satisfied that is greater than "I was hit."

That condition is measured in "reasonable fear" of "great" bodily harm. To me, the "reasonableness" of such a fear is predicated on how much damage has been sustained, how much damage can be done per blow, how possible it is to avoid such future damage.

If standing, the odds of avoiding such future damage are not close to zero like they are when pinned down. If standing, the odds of a blow being as damaging as skull to pavement are miniscule (assuming no weapon, knife, gun, lead pipe, etc., for the other guy). Which brings us back to category one. This is the category that has to "pick up the slack" in the "reasonable fear" department once the fight is one where everyone is standing. I don't think getting a broken nose and some minor cuts is much different at all than a single punch (which can break a nose or do worse actually).

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

BUt reasonable fear and great bodil harm are two different things. ONe is past tense the other is in the future.

Just because the bodily harm I've may have sustained up to the point I shot someone was not life-threatening doesn't mean there is not justified fear he isn't going to keep coming at me, even if standing.

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin